Here’s another way of looking at it, without the rights and privilges argument. I assume we all agree that no one should drive without passing the road test, however feeble that might be. Someone with a license suspended for something serious could be thought of as having failed a road test on the road. If we don’t give a license to a 17 year old who hasn’t shown he is capable of controlling a car, why let a 30 year old keep it after showing the same thing? Certainly the 17 year old who just flunked won’t get anywhere by whining that he needs the car to get to school or work. That’s tough.
California is having a big debate about licensing illegal immigrants. The argument against is that it give them an id, the argument for is that it makes them take a road test and get insurance, at least, since they drive anyhow. Thoughts?
I’m biased, because I hit (just barely) an uninsured clown on a suspended license who pulled out of a driveway right in front of me. He was lucky - if I were going faster or wasn’t paying attention I would have gotten him right on the driver side door. The good thing about it was after the cop who came to investigate found out that I had been wearing my seatbelt, he reamed this idiot a new asshole. This guy was one who was not competent to be on the road - it seemed he had a long history of violations and not giving a damn.
Mr 2001 I posted from a government link California DMV about driving being a privilege not a right. Here is more
(bolding mine)
What part of this is so hard to understand? How can you keep typing with your head that far up your ass?
I think that your problem is you think that our constitution guarantees happiness. It does not; it allows you to pursue happiness. If you fuck up, you are not going to be happy, but you can still pursue it.
So unless you have a government link that says that driving (or flying as a pilot for that matter) is a right please have a nice cup of Shut the fuck up
I’m afraid this doesn’t follow. Driving not being a *right * and driving not being allowed are not the same thing. The state has a legitimate need to allow some folks to drive and to deny others. And the state doesn’t deny the priviledge without cause. As the OP states, it often doesn’t deny it even when it HAS cause.
Something like around 100 k cars on the road in Toronto and area , are unlicenced and unissured , with drivers under suspension, so its not a local thing to any one metro area.
Its one of those nice things to say , but as you have already stated , the state has no intention of actually finding out who these people are , and getting them off the road. While a two or three weekends in a row , might be draconian for pulling over several million vehicles, just for a spot check for insurance and license and back ground check, but that is the govts priviledge to do so.
As well, living in Ontario , there are weather conciderations to concider , I cannot remember any one time , when the Govt of Ontario has told people in certain geographic areas , to stay off the road period, advised yes , but never ordered.
Again , the above would dictate that driving is a priviledge , to allow commercial vehicles and ministry clean up crews to access the road system, and wait for more safer driving conditions.
But its rarely enforced as a privilge
It won’t make a difference, the most you can hope for is a balance
One thing that strikes me , is that the post dealt with people that have commited some sort of infraction and have had their driving privilges revoked and still continue to drive.
But two instances come to mind , that have recently happened in two separate parts of ontario
One is that while driving along the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) speed limit of 65 mph , freeway , a driver stopped his vehicle to allow a family of Geese or ducks , that had wandered on to the highway to get off the road , his vehicle was struck from behind and his teenage daughter was killed in the collision.
Same thing happened , I believe in London Ontario , on the 401 , same speed limit, multi-car pile up occurs.
On my drivers handbook , its no different from California and probably the other 49 states and 9 provinces and three territorys , driving is a privilege , then its time to start enforcing it as a privilege and target all drivers , not just the ones with no licence and insurance , but the ones that will onramp and merge at 20 to thirty miles an hour, the ones that stop to allow animals to cross the road , etc.
Take the political hit and hurt your chances of re-election , or stop claiming its a privilege , nothing happens in a vaccum.
I dunno, what part of the following is hard to understand?
Before spouting off about what you think I think, maybe you ought to learn the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Let me put it this way: I contend that I have a right to travel. I have the right to get to Seattle by reasonable means (i.e. besides walking).
If I have no right to use those reasonable means, and neither does anyone else who can provide me with transportation (pilots, bus drivers, etc.), then my right to travel is being infringed - it’s subject to the whims of whoever doles out the “privilege” of driving.
Of course, the right to travel doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to give me a car or a lift, just as the right to a free press doesn’t obligate anyone to give me a press. What it means is that if I have a car, then I have the right to use it for travel, if I am fit to do so. (Mr. Antonelli in the OP clearly is not.)
Sure, but that says nothing about whether driving should be considered a right or a privilege. The state can take rights away from people who are unfit to exercise them.
I guess there aren’t too many practical differences between the right to drive and the privilege to drive. The biggest one, in my mind, is that a privilege may be granted or revoked for unrelated reasons. Some states will suspend a driver’s license for things unrelated to driving, like underage drinking or failure to pay child support, and I see that as an unwarranted violation of the driver’s rights.
What this has to do with the OP anymore, I have no idea.
You can’t “fly on private property” - you fly in Federal airspace.
Internationally, too - people still cross the oceans on boats. A lot less common, admittedly, and it takes more time.
If you prove to be an obnoxious, disruptive, abusive passenger time and again you CAN be banned from traveling on airplanes, or busses, or trains. If you prove to be a dangerous, obnoxious, unruly driver I see no reason not to revoke your driving privileges.
Can’t drive to Seattle? Take a bus. HIRE someone to drive you there. If you are such an irresponsible person that you have not only lost your driver’s license, you’ve also been banned from the airlines or the buslines then you are reaping what you have sowed.
If you are a responsible human being you might, at some point, face a temporary suspension but you won’t face a permanent loss of driver’s license without being some sort of really fucked up tool.
I would say you have a right to travel, you do not have a right to a particular mode of transportation.
No public transportation to your place of work? Lost your license? If you don’t have taxi service I guess you have three choices: 1) hire a driver or 2) move or 3) get a job you can work at from home. Inconvenient? Oh, yes - tough shit. If you had been behaving you wouldn’t find yourself in that position. You do NOT have a right to endanger others in order to get to work.
As it stands now, you may pursue a pilot’s license, but if you don’t meet certain standards it may not be issued. If, after issuance, you do not behave responsibly it will be revoked. Not only that - if you don’t drive your car responsibly your pilot license can be revoked even before your driver’s license is. (Although, in fact, you do not need to be a licensed driver to be a licensed pilot).
And some of the standards for a pilot license are medical. CrazyCatLady could take flight lessons - but unless she’s been off epilepsy medication and seizure free for something like 20 years she will never be given a license. Nothing against her personally – it just wouldn’t be fair to the people the airplane might fall on if she suddenly becomes incapacitated.
Likewise, if someone can’t be trusted to operate a car safely, allowing them to continue to drive is just not fair to the people they might hit, injure, or kill. If they can’t behave after being told their license is suspended throw 'em in jail where they can’t drive. Your “right to drive” ends where my safety begins.
Locomotion is natural, and although there were not cars in 1789, there certainly were horses and wagons.
How, I wonder, would the Founders have reacted to the notion that someone’s horse and wagon ‘privilege’ be taken away thus destroying that person’s ability to make a living?
Then again we kind of already know: horse thieves were hanged.
Driving a car is, as I see it, the logical technological progression of the right to move about freely. I can agree that it is necessary to determine whether or not a person has the ability to do so on public roads, and that there are some infractions that would warrant removing someone from the road (vehicular homicide, for one) the idea that not paying a parking ticket or that a gasoline drive-off should result in loss of driver’s license? Crazy, IMHO.
So is the idea that a person caught drinking at age 20 who is not driving nor anywhere near a car lose their driver’s license. If they’re driving drunk, then put 'em in jail. If they’re merely drunk, fine them. But taking their license when their crime doesn’t involve driving? Stupid.
Um, no? Anyone can get into a car and, with some practice, drive it. The state has certain tests you must pass to get a license, after which, it is assumed you can drive perfectly well. If your license is suspended, it isn’t as if you magically lose any and all information in your brain about driving.
People get a license, and only drive when they have one, because they want to be law-abiding citizens.
They are already revoked, at least on a temporary basis for some. Yet, as the OP notes, there are still an awful lot of them driving. So I guess your steadfast stance here is the status quo.
If someone has a license, it doesn’t make them a safe driver. Else we’d never have to remove them in the first place.
This distinction is simply unimportant. We’ve already shown, as a society, that we are willing to ignore equality for a massive number of situations, we require people get permits to organize, we restrict the ability to own a gun, etc, etc etc. Owning a gun is a right, except when they don’t need the constitution to pass a law against certain people owning guns. Forget the right/privilege dichotomy. It is practically meaningless.
As a personal matter, I have a hard time with punishing victimless crimes in general (drunk driving, for example), but I recognize that in some circumstances, the pragmatic side of me says, “It’s gotta be done, erl.” So I grin and bear it. I’m not sure this is such a circumstance. I kind of tossed out the increase pentalties if caught doing something bad, but truth be told I don’t like the idea either. Having a license doesn’t make you a responsible driver, else no one would ever lose their license, you know?
Finally we have some more information on Antonelli’s driving history. From today’s Baltimore Sun:
I left out paragraphs detailing further incidents of carrying drug paraphernalia, failing to meet terms of probation, and failing to appear in court for child support and criminal hearings. While such things might suggest that Antonelli is a less-than-admirable character, i really don’t think they have any bearing on the issue at hand, which is his driving behavior. The only one that might conceivably be relevant is the drug stuff, and then only if he was driving under the influence of drugs.
Anyway, i’m not sure these details will change anyone’s mind one way or the other, but i thought it was worth noting them.
Ok, the “reckless or negligent driving” certainly puts a point on it, that probably couldn’t be anything but being reckless (the “negligent” made me dubious, maybe his horn was out :p, but I ain’t going to argue reckless). The rest of the stuff, as I think you agree, is pretty meaningless for the case at hand. I wonder what their traffic laws are, or if people caught driving without a license here in MA always get reduced sentences or what? I wish I knew a judge or lawyer around here. I mean, two tickets for driving with a suspended license? Has the man done jail time or what?
Most states already impound cars of people caught driving with invalid or suspended licenses–when the offender is pulled over and arrested for it. Their vehicles are not released to them if they don’t have a valid driver’s license to drive it off the impound lot. If you’re talking about taking away the vehicle an unlicensed driver is found driving permanently, you’re not talking about impondment, you’re talking about civil forfeiture of private property used in a criminal enterprise. We generally only do that for serious felonies like drug trafficking, and I have some problems with even that. I don’t think most people would support the forfeiture of property worth several thousand dollars for a victimless misdemeanor. How would you feel about forfeiting your new Escalade to the state because your fifteen year old daughter took it out for a spin?
While we’re on it., GPS is not feasable for many reasons, foremost of which is cost. I can’t imagine any legislature that wants to shell out the cash to put Onstar in the vehicle of every misdemeanor DWLS in the state. It wouldn’t tell whoever is watching who is driving the vehicle, whether they are on route to or from work or not, etc. ad nauseum. No state has the resources to track the comings and goings of thousands of vehicles by satellite, and it wouldn’t tell them anything if they did.
Which brings us back to the central question: we already have stiff fines and jail sentences for driving without a license. What do you propose we do differently?
Well, it seemed like a first attempt. But it is workable, if scaled down properly. (Also, as I recall, breathylizers for drunks are paid for by the drunks in lieu of or in addition to a fine… but perhaps I remember incorrectly.)
Anklets for house arrest? There’s a lot of creative solutions here that don’t involve significant real time monitoring, but which have the same thrust as the GPS idea.
Surely it doesn’t cost more than $1000 for a GPS system, I’ve seen them myself, yet we’re willing to fine an unregistered vehicle (second offense, in MA) one grand. Unless the state considers this a steady source of revenue (har har) I think we’ve got the mechanisms in place here, they just have to be put to more intelligent use.
While you are hear, I was hoping I could pick your brain for a sec. When I say that MA considers such-and-such a criminal citation, that doesn’t mean felony, right, only a misdemeanor for which there could be jail time? Or is this going to vary wildly from state to state?
Not permanently, at least not at first. How about this? First offense, one month; second, six months; third, a year; fourth, then it’s permanent. Unless the driver can prove that they are becoming better at handling the responsiblity, in which case they can go back a step.
I suppose one could argue that I have a right to own a baseball bat, and a right to carry that bat in public. But nobody would argue for my right to walk down public sidewalks swingin that bat willy-nilly. If I were to make a habit of such behavior, even if I had injured no one, I would be prevented, probably by incarceration, from doing it again. I would be considered a threat to public safety. A two ton vehicle traveling 60mph is much more dangerous by several orders of magnitude. Included in the privilege of driving is the responsibility to do so safely and responsibly.
I take it personally when I observe stupid, dangerous driving behaviors. I feel threatened, much more so than I would by someone wildly swinging a bat in my directrion. Even if the threat is not intentionally directed towards me, I am no less in jeapordy. Ask an EMT or an emergency room nurse what they think of habitual negligent drivers.
As for solutions? Let’s say to appease those who claim that loss of livelihood is a mitigating factor (I don’t) that the first serious offense results in fines, points against the license, and a probationary period. After that, you lose your license for an appropriate time. At some point permanent loss of license occurs. You will not be allowed to insure or register a vehicle upon penalty of jail time, heavy fines, whatever it takes!
More Americans die every year in traffic “accidents” then were killed in action during the Vietnam War.
Neither do I. (But I’d call them “driving rights”. ;))
How do I know the bus driver will be able to drive me, if his ability to drive is a mere “privilege” that may be revoked at some politician or bureaucrat’s whim? In order for me to have a right to travel, someone has to have the right to drive or fly me to my destination.
No one is born with the ability to write or safely handle a gun either. They are, however, born with the ability to learn how to do those things.
